Data concerning the representation of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in rural local bodies (RLBs) of Tamil Nadu, as mentioned in the recently-launched report ‘Status of Devolution to Panchayats in States’, have caught long-time observers of panchayats in the State by surprise.
The reason is that the share of OBCs in the RLBs – village panchayats, panchayat unions and district panchayats – has not been accurately reflected. Prepared by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) after having been commissioned by the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj to carry out a study, the report, which covers the situation as obtained in 2024, states that the overall share of OBCs in the RLBs is 12.39% with the break-up being 12.16% in village panchayats; 15.42% in panchayat unions and 17.25% in district panchayats.
The report also talks of women’s quota, which has been mentioned as 57.3% at the overall level. At the three layers of the RLBs, the figures are 57.2%, 58.07% and 55.41%. All the data have been carried by two tables (4.5 and 4.7), titled ‘Representation of Weaker Sections and Women in Panchayats’ and ‘Representative Democracy in India and Affirmative Action’.
Asked how he arrived at the figures of the OBCs, V.N. Alok, Professor of the IIPA and coordinator of the study, told The Hindu on Saturday that it was on the basis of data provided by the respective State governments, apart from updating his own calculations done in 2013. However, he hastened to add that the study was not meant for “affirmative action but devolution”. To another question whether the figures of women’s reservation have encompassed those of OBCs, his response: “possible”. Despite the subject of reservation being a small component of the study, field tests were carried out to cover this aspect too, the coordinator pointed out.
What is obvious is that the women’s quota, which is horizontal in nature, has been clubbed with those of SCs and STs to arrive at the figure of OBCs, whereas such a calculation should not have been done. The report, which carried the findings of an earlier study relating to 2013-14 with which Prof. Alok had associated himself as the coordinator, had two tables, with the titles identical to those of the latest study but no figures had been given with regard to the OBCs’ representation in Tamil Nadu.
G. Palanithurai, veteran academician and who was the chief adviser for a similar study carried out by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, at the behest of the Union Ministry for the year 2015-16, completely disagrees with the figures of OBCs’ representation. “They do not look credible.”
Approached for comment, Gagandeep Singh Bedi, Additional Chief Secretary (Rural Development and Panchayat Raj) in the Tamil Nadu government, refers to the scheme of reservation wherein there is provision only for the SC/STs based on the proportion of the communities to the State’s population and for women (50% – horizontal).
Without getting drawn into the debate over the correctness or otherwise of the data in the latest report, Mr. Bedi states that as far as his department is concerned, as on January 1, 2024, the figures of the share of “non-reserved General and BC representatives” were as follows: 65% in respect of presidents of village panchayats; 72% for members of village panchayats’ wards; 76% for panchayat unions’ ward members and 72% for district panchayats’ ward members.
